Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Asian History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Asian History Asian History Forum - China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, and the Asia-Pacific Region


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 13th, 2012, 09:00 AM   #151
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: varanasi uttar pradesh, india
Posts: 1,610

first, i did not raise paleography and i had clearly said that if Gupta brahmi is not later than kushan, there is no point in dismissing your theory and whether they were of 100 or 200 ad is irrelevant.


so far as satvahana coins is concerned, i never said that they were carbon dated but the pots on which some tamil characters have been found have been tested by that method.

now the point is that the coin contains legend of some satkarni and i think you should go to Iravatham Mahadevan or R Nagaswamy to find whether the 200 bc tamil characters are anterior to that legend or not. if they are later, i can assure you very few things remain to be said.


since i have read it somewhere, i can not give any source but i am convinced about it so you may search it


and i am firm that those pre ashokan brahmi in adainachallur should be compared with that coin legend as they should be similar given similar timeframe but they are not.
as per IK Sharma there is

a bilingual portrait seris of coins - bearing on the obverse, the legend in Prakrit, reading Rajno Vashishti Putasa Sri Pulamavisa. The reverse reads in Tamil? Aracanaku Vacitti makanaku Thiru Pudumaviku.

now it would be interesting to match this with finding at adainachallur.

Last edited by avantivarman; October 13th, 2012 at 09:19 AM.
avantivarman is offline  
Remove Ads
Old October 14th, 2012, 09:14 AM   #152
Lecturer
 
Joined: May 2012
From: Western India
Posts: 414

Quote:
Originally Posted by avantivarman View Post
first, i did not raise paleography and i had clearly said that if Gupta brahmi is not later than kushan, there is no point in dismissing your theory and whether they were of 100 or 200 ad is irrelevant.
I understand your point but the fact is that palaeography is a subject unto itself & people will cite its example to state that palaeographically Kushans are attested earlier than Guptas. Hence, we have to make the palaeographic aspect clear as well.

I think what you missed in my post is the point about King Vikramaditya. I gave you an example of how the historicity of this legendary & much-loved king can be based on firm grounds. The statement of the Kalakacharya Katha about the Shahanushahi as title for the Saka overlord is also very curious. The Western Kshatrapas are not known to have held such titles apart from the fact that they should be, according to our opinion, placed several centuries befroe the Common Era (CE). I would have liked your comments on that & the evidence of Nepal Vamshavali.

Quote:
Originally Posted by avantivarman View Post
so far as satvahana coins is concerned, i never said that they were carbon dated but the pots on which some tamil characters have been found have been tested by that method.

now the point is that the coin contains legend of some satkarni and i think you should go to Iravatham Mahadevan or R Nagaswamy to find whether the 200 bc tamil characters are anterior to that legend or not. if they are later, i can assure you very few things remain to be said.


since i have read it somewhere, i can not give any source but i am convinced about it so you may search it


and i am firm that those pre ashokan brahmi in adainachallur should be compared with that coin legend as they should be similar given similar timeframe but they are not.
as per IK Sharma there is

a bilingual portrait seris of coins - bearing on the obverse, the legend in Prakrit, reading Rajno Vashishti Putasa Sri Pulamavisa. The reverse reads in Tamil? Aracanaku Vacitti makanaku Thiru Pudumaviku.

now it would be interesting to match this with finding at adainachallur.
I think the below article should be of some help in this regard.

Dr.Gift Siromoney's Home Page

It is here argued that though Iravathan Mahadevan has classified Tamil Brahmi into 3 developmental stages, based on the inscriptions none of these stages can be said to have been older than the other. One of these stages is the use of what is termed as 'Pulli' in the script (a characteristic only found in tamil writing).

This 'Pulli' is considered by Mahadevan as belonging to the third developmental stage of Tamil Brahmi & is therefore dated by him to 1st & 2nd century AD. Yet the author of the above article argues that in the 'Tolkaiappam' the Pulli system is already known & the Tolkaiappam is considered the oldest text of Sangam literature. Kurunthogai, alater Sangam text is dated to around 180 BC. Therefore, Tolkaiappam should be significantly earlier than that. And since it mentions the Pulli system which is found in the Satavahana coin, in my opinion the Pulli system cannot be used as a palaeographic ground to date the Satavahana coin to 2nd century AD.

Besides, all the 3 different stages mentioned by Mahadevan are not found as systematically in the inscriptions. Features of two or even all three styles are often found in a single inscription. Therefore, again palaeography is a science which has produced vastly different views of scholars.

Regarding the radio-carbon dating of the Adichanallur finds, I found in a six-year old article that a thermo-luminescence date of 500 BC had been found for the particular potsherd on which the inscription was found. However I was not able to find any new articles on this inscription.

Most relevant to us is the palaeographic study of this inscription and I do not think we have any palaeographic study of this inscription which can be compared to the Satavahana coin.

Almost all of the Tamil Brahmi inscriptions, including the Satavahana coin, discovered so far have not been dated by any scientific method other than palaeography which is, we have found, a very unreliable science.
Immchr is offline  
Old October 14th, 2012, 09:42 AM   #153
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: varanasi uttar pradesh, india
Posts: 1,610

well, actually i have this to say on nepali evidence which in my view is very decisive.

first, as per nepali vanshavalis( parvatiya)the 27 th king of solar dynasty Shivdeva varma may belong to 2764 kalyabd and now starting from 3102 bc as start point of this samvat we get some 328 bc as his reign.

the problem is that we have got a copper plate of Shiv deva varma dated 119 Harsha samvat and western scholars needing a single loophole have used this as evidence to dismiss credibility of parvatiya vanshavalis. this parvatiya vanshavali is the same describing Vikramaditya visit to Anshu varma and since shivdeva varma is dated to post 600 ad based on his copper plate containing harsha samvat so it is assumed that Anshu varma flourishing in 102-34 bc is wrong.

this i admit is a single loophole but does detriment the theory as in vanshavali it is clearly mentioned that ANshu varma came later than Shiv deva varma.


hope you would clear this too.
avantivarman is offline  
Old October 14th, 2012, 10:11 AM   #154
Lecturer
 
Joined: May 2012
From: Western India
Posts: 414

Quote:
Originally Posted by avantivarman View Post
well, actually i have this to say on nepali evidence which in my view is very decisive.

first, as per nepali vanshavalis( parvatiya)the 27 th king of solar dynasty Shivdeva varma may belong to 2764 kalyabd and now starting from 3102 bc as start point of this samvat we get some 328 bc as his reign.

the problem is that we have got a copper plate of Shiv deva varma dated 119 Harsha samvat and western scholars needing a single loophole have used this as evidence to dismiss credibility of parvatiya vanshavalis. this parvatiya vanshavali is the same describing Vikramaditya visit to Anshu varma and since shivdeva varma is dated to post 600 ad based on his copper plate containing harsha samvat so it is assumed that Anshu varma flourishing in 102-34 bc is wrong.

this i admit is a single loophole but does detriment the theory as in vanshavali it is clearly mentioned that ANshu varma came later than Shiv deva varma.


hope you would clear this too.
As far I know, there is no inscription where Harsha samvat is mentioned. And in the particular inscription you're referring to, it is just mentioned as samvat. The western & Indian scholars have conjectured that this samvat could be Harsha Samvat but many do not accept it because according to them the inscriptions of Amshuvarma also makes use of this same samvat. And based on Hiuen Tsang, they say that Amshuvarma lived before the time of the Chinese pilgrim. This makes the theory of Harsha Samvat untenable.

But for our purpose, it suffices to say that 'harsha samvat' is nowhere mentioned.
Immchr is offline  
Old October 14th, 2012, 10:37 AM   #155
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: varanasi uttar pradesh, india
Posts: 1,610

what i have read mentions Harsha samvat and not just samvat but if what you say is right it is another instance of just assuming the things by colonial historians and their indian imitators.

this puts our traditionally loved hero Vikramaditya into real ground and that too in same timeline that is first century bc.

believe me i am watching how one after another there are cases of assumptions and just assumptions.
avantivarman is offline  
Old October 16th, 2012, 01:39 AM   #156

Lord_of_Gauda's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2009
From: Canada
Posts: 6,518

Quote:
Originally Posted by Immchr View Post
However we know of no such accounts. Therefore, your theory is unsubstantiated. Give us some proof that the account of Megasthenes is from the 4th century AD or else do not make absurd claims.
1. It is rather absurd to think that the period of the deepest archaeologically attested link between India and the mediterranean (circa 50s BCE to 400s CE) wouldn't have any transfer of information.

2. The accounts of megasthenes, as with virtually all other Roman and Greek documents are from copies of texts that do not go much beyond 9th century CE- ie, those texts are copies of copies of copies through the eras.



Quote:
So you say that Alexander's sources were meticulously preserved. Does this mean all the accounts of Alexander that are preserved reflect the situation as it existed in the 4th century BC ?
The accounts of Alexander was preserved to a far greater degree of accuracy than random tales of foreign lands- i don't see how you would find this shocking, given that most civilizations provide far greater detail about their society than distant lands, accounts of which are of much lesser accuracy.



Quote:
The issue is not about Megasthenes. It is you who said that Megasthenes' account is unreliable.
The issue is about the comment you made that 'since megasthenes didn't mention this, therefore he was unfamiliar to this'. I said that such a conclusion cannot be supported, since we do not have complete work of megasthenes, so we cannot be sure of what megasthenes was/was not aware of, based on fragmentary collections.

Quote:
But I showed you that it is in Alexander's accounts (which you said were very meticulously preserved) of Diodorus, Plutarch & Curtius where Xandramas, who is the corollary for Chandramsa, the powerful pre-Gupta Naga king, is mentioned. So it means even the Alexandrine accounts reflect an immediate pre-Gupta period.

Don't beat around the bush. Why does Alexander's account mention Xandramas aka Chandramsa, the predecessor of Gupta emperor Chandragupta I ?
Because as the times passed and the Gupta empire rolled around circa 200s CE, the Roman scribes simply confused between two similar sounding dynasties of foreign land and scribing errors crept in with genealogies.
That is, as i said, not unheard of, as similar sounding names have been confused in history much later than the Roman times, for example the early european confusion regarding the Qing(Manchu) dynasty and the Chin dynasty.
Lord_of_Gauda is offline  
Old October 16th, 2012, 01:48 AM   #157

Lord_of_Gauda's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2009
From: Canada
Posts: 6,518

Quote:
Originally Posted by Immchr View Post
See the twisted logic ! But as I have showed in this thread, according to Puranic chronology, it is the Gupta dynasty that comes to power immediately after the expedition of Alexander in the 4th century BC. This is also supported by the Greek accounts of that period. Based on the Puranic chronology, King Vikramaditya of Ujjain becomes a post-Gupta Emperor and not a pre-Gupta one.
1. there is no clear case of the Puranic chronology placing the Guptas circa 400s BCE. That is based on speculative basis on when exactly the 'vikram samvat' started and the context of it.

2. Even if Puranic literature explicitly stated that the Guptas came to power around 400s BCE, then it still gets tossed out of the window as spurious, as we have the Piyadassi pillar brahmi clearly identifying 4 Greek kings that are independently attested to've existed between 270s-250s BCE.

As i repeatedly draw your attention to it and you repeatedly ignore it, the Piyadassi pillar is the prime piece of evidence we have on dating the Guptas, as the Gupta script is definitely a derivative of the brahmi of Piyadassi pillar.

You rather speculatively and without any basis, dismiss the Piyadassi pillar as 'speaking of someone else', when we very clearly have evidence of 4 Greek kings matching up to the 4 kings mentioned in the Piyadassi pillar with a striking degree of similarity.
Therefore, as i said, the bulk of evidence points towards a pre-Gupta script being in use around 400s BCE and therefore, rules out the existence of the Guptas around that time.

The 4 kings identified in the Piyadassi pillar is accepted by the archaeological and linguistic community to speak of the 4 Greek kings in existence around 270-250 BCE. Therefore, to challenge this convention, you must, at the very least, provide archaeological evidence of the 4 kings matching any other timeframe than the Greek kings.

To me and to most historians, the Piyadassi pillar is a quite clear case of being dated to 250s BCE, which puts the Guptas to atleast 200s CE period.

We have also established, with clear evidence, that the term 'yavana' has been applied to the Greeks and the oldest case of verifiable mention of the Yavanas is from the Heliodorus pillar, where the names categorically associated with the Yavanas are clearly Greek and non-Indian.

The position you wish to push simply has far less material evidence to support it than the conventional position.
Lord_of_Gauda is offline  
Old October 16th, 2012, 01:52 AM   #158

Lord_of_Gauda's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2009
From: Canada
Posts: 6,518

Quote:
Originally Posted by avantivarman View Post
@ LoG

your view that Megasthenes describes 4th century ad India is not at all tenable as it assumes

1. greeks came in 4th century india and obtained deep information about india which they did not

2. that till 4th century ad no work of Mehasthenes was available at large

3. when scribes sat to copy they mixed the 4th century ad indian records with those of Megasthenes which is nothing short of conspiracy theory. this is the most absurd thing as Arrian quotes from indica of Megasthenes and there may be a spelling or some minor error but that they mixed him with some mythical 4th century greek traveller to india is ridiculous.


do you have any evidence of

1. greek coming to india in 400 ad

2. returning with indian rulers name and details

3. that there exists any book on this which the poor scribes mixed with those of Megasthenes.
My view is not that Megasthenes describes 4th century CE India, but the accounts of megasthenes that survives in the works of arrian, diodorus siculous, etc. are 4th century accounts bleeding into the sribed copies of the works.

As i said, the situation circa 300s CE, with three Chandraguptas (The Maurya and the two Gupta emperors) is confusing enough for foreign scribes with minimal interest in these lands to confuse accounts and social tales from one to another.
What we know of Arrian, also is from 9th century CE texts, with previous copies being scribed over and over again, which presents the genuine case of errors creeping in and accounts of similar foreign sounding names/places getting confused.
Lord_of_Gauda is offline  
Old November 21st, 2012, 04:09 AM   #159

Bharata's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Forum
Posts: 271

Nice theory
Bharata is offline  
Old November 29th, 2012, 02:36 AM   #160
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,542

Wow, let me just say this thread was brilliant!(So much so, it made me join the forum!) I learned so much about the history of ancient India! I have a strong interest in the history of science and philosophy and I have a particular interest in Indian science and philosophy, so I will stand to benefit from broadening my knowledge of ancient Indian history in general.

I have noted similar gross injustice done to the the history of Indian science and philosophy that the author of this thread implicates on Indian general history. For example, Pythagoras theorem should be called Baudayana theorem(it is explicitly mentioned in the Sulba-Sutras a few centuries before him). The use of binary numbers and using binary code wrongly attributed to Leibniz, should be attributed to Pingala(200BCE). The father of medicine and surgery should be called Charaka and Susthruta(600BCE) and not Galen and Hippocrates. In fact Sushruta and Charakas work are surprisingly modern giving systematic classification of diseases, surgery and medicine(Sushruta alone mentions 1200+ diseases, 300 surgical procedures and 125 surgical instruments and medicine is divided into 8 departments) Kananda(600BCE) describes the first natural philosophy, scientific method, theories of atoms, theories of motion, theories of thermodynamics(such as physical state changes, chemical changes) - and yet our history gives credit to Democritus and Aristotle(whose theories are significantly inferior to Kananda) Panini(500BCE) describes formal theories of language, mathematical linguistics which anticipates the entire history of modern linguistics and modern logic. Aryabhatta(500AD) describes the earth rotating around its axis, elliptical orbits of the planets - but the credit goes to Kepler. Brahmagupta(600AD) describes the gravitational attraction of the Earth - but the credit goes to Galileo and Newton.

I can go on and on. I have discovered so many injustices in my research on the history of Indian science and philosophy, that I have come to the conclusion that an obvious fraud has been done in history. It is obvious Indian history has been suppressed and distorted by European historians. So given that I already know that there has definitely been foulplay by European historians in telling us the history of India, I definitely think the OP's case is plausible - however the implications are dramatic if true! It means most of our dates for Indian history have to be pushed back by 1200 years! That literally means rewriting Indian history in every textbook.

Now, I am not completely ignorant of the general history of India. I know Indian records a continuous urban history going back 6000 years or more. Prior to the Europeans coming to Indians, all Indian records recorded this extent of antiquity. In fact, even ancient Greek record that Indian records traced their history that far back. The Indians had no records of any massive invasions of India, they were silent on Alexandra's excursions and they were silent on a mass Aryan migration. The Europeans literally rewrote their history.

The Indians were told their history is not very ancient, in fact it goes back at the most to 1500BCE. They were told they had already been invaded by the ancestors of the Europeans several times: the Indo-Europeans and the Greeks(starting with Alexandra excursions) and Indians being a subjugated people had to accept what they were told. (They were also told their Risis were nomadic barbarians) Their entire tradition of scholarship was rejected as fantasy, superstition. However, what is ironic here, European scholars themselves criticized these theories pointing to the fact that the astronomical references(Bailey et al) and the textual references do not at all support the theories and also pointing out the arbitrary and poor scholarship of the authors posing these theories.

Later, when we discovered the Indus Valley civilization and found actual proof of advanced urban settlements in India going back 6000 years ago, surprise surprise just as the Indian records had said and which in modern scientific standards would be considered grounds for falsification of our old theories - instead we just dubbed it "mysterious" and created this gap of IVC and Vedic period - rather than admitting "Hey, we are wrong, their history really does go back 6000 years or more" Now, so much evidence has emerged in the fields of archaeology, DNA studies which clearly show that the IVC and the so-called Vedic period are continuous(in the fact the IVC already has Vedic features)

The way I see it is there is OBVIOUS evidence that the Europeans have deliberately distorted and suppressed Indian history. In order to maintain our current history of India we have to deny the entire civilization of India - its records, its literature, its scholarship. Literally, it is a complete denial of a civilization.

This is one of those cases where the saying "History is written by the victorious" rings very true.

Last edited by Joshua A; November 29th, 2012 at 02:46 AM.
Joshua A is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
ancient, indian, injustice


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ancient Indian army Nego Asian History 71 May 2nd, 2014 08:56 PM
Indian presence in ancient China? Thessalonian Asian History 62 February 10th, 2013 10:00 AM
Ancient Indian Ranged Weapon plutoboyz Asian History 19 June 15th, 2012 05:52 PM
Ancient Indian Battlefield Tactics bluesman Asian History 11 April 16th, 2011 07:55 AM
A great history, a great advance, a great book! TasteOfTorment Art and Cultural History 7 January 29th, 2011 08:48 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.